IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 25 October 2019 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D63C12004D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t6XUnqmLfEyK for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AC0F120043 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id g50so4626006qtb.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:14:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=44FEZUTnqcOqDjKsJ4wUQBkUO9pdVkc8nMZ/p4ihKM4=; b=PoAgUTIM4VC13lH/KooiLn3F144KZqFQYdUi3AI76TzsfziUmougXfsuaqDwWVdYj0 21WbhDxfAgzJGqGyyNGQdpF07keUIo7jRxoDlWGR6XMHo8SyW/oN0o/vKLxdBajH80Ly XOK3XD/btQy+JUyoB6zJwtZgUBE7YGEtv044Z/0AHSNnyswVSW9rx8V3d8g9tOVOcQsL oJgV3NvZj6RYtq1Bno11DwuvKlbWpO2KqZXsGDJ9USU1FFkEJbiY6eJsdO1T3rVrvnzZ I4bADV89DtXwjkjwbZcXyydCoqEzWk43/fPa0giNBBDsoaqExtTG97ItqNpmgcHVglHj e1DQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=44FEZUTnqcOqDjKsJ4wUQBkUO9pdVkc8nMZ/p4ihKM4=; b=jur0Yc84UsOxndWW04E7+kwkHSnptjwEYxQAL/QtxTAIRzSJSKAafbNzPegAxP3wjt e7vXxOmCflA137fmuS5RmafCXSJXcb+Ux+MIy6RlYbPMtum1IhSXhlCx2PJXk0G168u0 2Y1DY4Oyle3lG4vLkUTomFarT5gX+ASGQj6ykvDKIdIQOprkty6BYy5IQsEMmTlRGyeg t9ds281KEu5SJOYEb5I5d3UBytSLW/AkSYXrf3eQecnB3+NoxTeNzisj9n1hvX6gSLju akj6Gmou21tkSSV/8567G8Sm5NcuOKGtjHaAYkx9Tp5f2PLIBVEdIIuZ1Z6jTVtkn9dE lwRQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVSUmR2NurCahve9vYJgu9buxW9EG9alobsPUP/isgnSdePQNSN oJi3d0MN8F3s25biu129ZXpcIQFG4l13Iw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwCnBjQMYJ5wL1rjEfFv9vNk5tNgtwT5LvP+f5ue2FjFYKD5rxdMENmk3HQQD3+FtmAbnSBFw==
X-Received: by 2002:aed:22c8:: with SMTP id q8mr4771342qtc.0.1572027291700; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:f9e1:cec4:6cf2:e2c1? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:f9e1:cec4:6cf2:e2c1]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p56sm1842209qtp.81.2019.10.25.11.14.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 25 Oct 2019 11:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <0E52D130-261A-4EAF-87C9-08AC96A1F0EF@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7619E691-EAB9-4502-871D-112EFD8C635A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3601.0.4\))
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:14:49 -0400
In-Reply-To: <99f9eb4f-9e66-d0ae-c600-09f203d8f0bc@si6networks.com>
Cc: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <860c946a-c23c-4060-d83c-587302de28f8@si6networks.com> <5A20C8D8-3A42-464D-9D6D-79F1567B6FA4@employees.org> <1a07be3c-90bb-5182-1a11-5e94fbbacf44@si6networks.com> <4C2352ED-4B3A-4F11-B860-FE0848513431@fugue.com> <99f9eb4f-9e66-d0ae-c600-09f203d8f0bc@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3601.0.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/lmFrRVcmDw8KiNORJ94BWn9dha8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 18:14:54 -0000

On Oct 25, 2019, at 2:10 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> The reality is that, we have all sort of things in the echosystem. So if
> the network is to be robust, while we can and do improvements were
> possible/needed. That said, there should be smarts on the hosts to cope
> with these scenarios gracefully (hope for the best, plan for the worst).

I agree.   But if an ISP’s DHCP server is not doing this, I would say that it’s a bug, and we should make sure that we are at least giving them correct advice about what DHCP’s behavior should be.   Similarly with the CPE: if it asks for e.g. a /64, and gets two, one with a preferred lifetime of zero, does it advertise both?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email